Replication files for Bueno & Dunning, ``Race, Resources, and Representation:
Evidence from Brazilian Politicians,'' World Politics, volume 69, no. 1, April 2017.

These folders contain three types of files: code, data, and questionnaires. These are organized in separate sub-folders. Other materials (photos, videos, speeches) used in the survey and coding survey are available in the authors' websites or available upon request. See our Supplemenary Materials section E on our data sources. See codebook.xlsx for a list of the datasets (sheet 1) and variables (sheet 2).

A. The code files are:

1. "replication_Bueno_Dunning_2014_main_final.R": tables, figures, and data cited in the main text
2. "replication_Bueno_Dunning_2014_appendix_final.R": tables, figures, and data cited in the supporting information 
3. "replication_Bueno_Dunning_2014_functions.R": authors' functions file

B. The data files are:
1. "replication_data.RData": this file contains several datasets used in the analyses, see our codebook for a description of variables for each data set
2. Several bootstrap .Rda files: these files contain bootstrapped data used to generate our figures; code for the bootstraps is available in "replication_Bueno_Dunning_2014_main_final.R" and "replication_Bueno_Dunning_2014_appendix_final.R").

C. The questionnaires are:
1. "coder_attributes_survey.pdf": questionnaire used to collect coders' information (in Portuguese, the survey was conducted online)
2. "example_coder_survey.pdf": questionnaire used to classify candidates' race/color (in Portuguese, the survey was conducted online)
3. "survey_experiment_portuguese.pdf": questionnaire used in the survey experiment (in Portuguese, it was a face-to-face paper-based survey)

This replication file was reviewed in April 2021. After reading via the peer review process a manuscript that replicated and extended our analysis and identified minor coding errors in our quality of numbers analysis (“Race and Campaign Resources: Candidate Identification Numbers in Brazil," anonymous), we corrected those errors and found our results largely unchanged. To reflect these corrections, we have updated the paper's Figure 5 and the analyses in the Appendix that contained measures of the quality of candidates' numerical identification. 

For the sake of thoroughness, we also conducted an extensive audit of the replication materials. In that process, we found minor typos in the Appendix. We also compared our main datasets against datasets independently manipulated by a research assistant to ensure that there were no issues in the joining of our primary datasets and the secondary datasets we had collected. 

Please contact natalia.bueno@emory.edu and thad.dunning@berkeley.edu with any questions or requests.

